Hudson & Duncan

In this matter before Judge Bender, the dispute concerned the relocation of the parties' four-year-old son, X. The Mother sought to relocate with X to Canberra to pursue a new career opportunity and her new relationship, while the Father wished for X to remain living in Melbourne to continue their existing shared care arrangement. Both parties indicated they would remain in their respective cities regardless of the court's decision regarding X's primary residence.

The court was required to determine the parenting orders that would be in X's best interests, specifically addressing whether X should live with the Mother in Canberra or remain living with the Father in Melbourne. The legal issues also encompassed the practical arrangements for X to spend time with the non-resident parent, including the frequency, location, and logistical responsibilities for travel.

The court's reasoning focused on the practical implications of the parents' stated intentions to remain in separate cities. Given the Mother's firm intention to relocate to Canberra and the Father's intention to remain in Melbourne, the court concluded that it was not practicable to maintain equal or significant and substantial time with both parents. The court acknowledged that both parents were exemplary and child-focused, but the geographical separation necessitated a primary residence order. The court considered the potential impact of separation from a parent on X, the practical difficulties and expenses of travel, and each parent's capacity to meet X's needs.

Ultimately, the court ordered that X live with the Father in Melbourne. X was to spend time with the Mother on alternate weekends, with one weekend in Melbourne and the other in Canberra, as well as during holidays and special occasions, with detailed provisions for travel and communication arrangements between the parents.